Memory Alpha:Featured article nominations
Nominations without objections Na'kuhl The Na'kuhl were a species with bright red eyes, pale complexions, bony faces, and many veins visible on their bald heads. During the 29th century, the Na'kuhl were a faction in the Temporal Cold War, vehemently opposed to the Temporal Accord. They were meanwhile led by Vosk, a dangerous fanatic who viewed time travel as his innate right, despite the damage that might be done to the timeline. The ancestors of the Na'kuhl under Vosk's leadership worshiped gods, and Vosk once referred to them as having been considerably imaginative. At another time, a Na'kuhl who Vosk later respectfully described as "our greatest scientist" stated, "Every moment we live, we are moving through time." At one point in their history under Vosk's leadership, the Na'kuhl attempted to eradicate the Suliban. They traveled into the past to prevent the Suliban from becoming sentient. However, an opposing faction of temporal agents stopped the Na'kuhl and ensured that the Suliban attained sentience, despite the ongoing enmity between the Temporal Agents and the Suliban. ---- Partly a self-nomination, I've added to the bg info section, while I also believe the in-universe portion of the article is admirably up-to-scratch. --Defiant 00:24, December 19, 2011 (UTC) :When nominating articles, please use the format described above, not one that hasn't been used since mid 2005. This also requires a FA blurb. - 00:49, December 19, 2011 (UTC) How's that? --Defiant 03:45, December 19, 2011 (UTC) ::Comment: (inb4 this gets a bunch of concise support votes) - at first glance, I didn't find anything that is particularly wrong with this article - but at the same time, I didn't find anything that makes this article particularly impressive either. Is there anything besides being "up-to-scratch" alone that makes this article "FA material"? -- Cid Highwind 20:27, December 19, 2011 (UTC) :While the blurb is good, I have to echo Cid's comment about the article. It seems there should be more information for a species seen in two-ish episodes, even if some of that information comes close to being episode summaries. The article just isn't particularly interesting to read. While I'm not going to oppose it over something like that, I won't support it either as is. Also, is there no other bg info on this species? - 21:03, December 19, 2011 (UTC) :::I'll third Cid's comment. Like Archduk, I won't outright oppose it, but I won't support it either.--31dot 21:18, December 19, 2011 (UTC) I relate to what you're saying, and I agree the article could use some more work/some extra material added to it. The bg info is very rare and far between for this species. I remember, years ago, that the "Storm Front" script(s) was/were available online; this is, sadly, no longer the case. I've scoured the official magazines, Trekweb, the official Trek website, the blogs of both John Eaves and Doug Drexler, the DVD special features, the script of "Zero Hour" (which is also not available on-line), and relevant interviews online as well as listed on IMDb. I believe the article is well researched (including the bg info that is either rare or not publicly available at all) and well-written. However, I'm not entirely sure what could be added to the article, never having written any species article personally. I'd be open to suggestions. --Defiant 00:51, December 20, 2011 (UTC) :I'll be taking a look at this in detail soon, as I plan to rewatch the episodes in the next few days, if not sooner. - 00:24, December 22, 2011 (UTC) Cool! I've always personally liked this species, so I'm not just flippantly nominating the article; I'm prepared to try to make it as good as it can possibly be. I've thought of some possibilities of more info that could be added; how the Na'kuhl were viewed by the resistance fighters of the time (shock, etc.), and the Na'kuhl technology. --Defiant 11:07, December 22, 2011 (UTC) Nominations with objections Galaxy class model When it came time to design a new starship Enterprise for Star Trek: The Next Generation, history did not repeat itself. Where Matt Jefferies had to produce hundreds of sketches to come up with the design direction for the original Enterprise, the main design work for the exterior of the new [[Galaxy class model|''Galaxy''-class USS Enterprise-D studio model]] was already done before the production design process even called for the work to start. In 1979, long before the new Star Trek series was announced, Andrew Probert, upon completion of his work on Star Trek: The Motion Picture painted an illustration of a future starship concept, strictly for his own enjoyment. "I actually did a little painting (8"×5.6") of a ship that would have been the ''Enterprise had I been able to take it fully in the direction I wanted to take it. That little painting became the basis for the Enterprise-D.", he recalled. Elaborating, he later added, "''Having warp engines above the saucer always bothered me and I thought it made more sense to lower them closer to the ship's center of mass. And, while I was at it, I thought, along with the saucer's wide horizontal profile, the other main elements should also be wide and horizontal. So I sat down and said,... "what if..I could design this ship the way I thought it should look"?" ---- Incredibly detailed article; Sennim has created another article that just demands to be featured. - 00:24, December 22, 2011 (UTC) :Just some comments for the moment (although I might choose to elevate them to proper opposition): I feel the article is very hard to read due to its use of inline-italics for quotes. Quotes formatted like this make up big parts of the article, and huge italicized paragraphs are just too hard to follow. There's also a different quote formatting in use, which is indented/block in normal font. I think the article needs to be copyedited so that all "bigger" quotes are formatted according to that second style, and only short sentence fragments remain as inline quotes. I'd like to read through the article after this has been changed and then decide on the actual content. However, two things that are immediately apparent are 1) no image at the article top (one should be moved there), and 2) the overall article length. I wonder if this isn't actually too long already, and should be split in two or more articles about subtopics. -- Cid Highwind 11:04, December 22, 2011 (UTC) ::It is a bit long, IMO. --Defiant 12:30, December 22, 2011 (UTC) :::I could see splitting this up into a few articles; one about the general history of the design, and articles about the construction of the various types of models. The general history article could then contain links to the latter articles. I think that if that was done, they could all be FA's.--31dot 12:40, December 22, 2011 (UTC) I've done a pass at the quotes, and moved one of the images to the top (waiting on feedback before updating the blurb), but I once again feel that it needs to be pointed out that there is no size requirement or limitation for FAs. That said, I just don't see a way to break this article up without introducing more problems than the perceived one about the length, and it's not like we're going to start breaking up other long articles like James T. Kirk or Worf any time soon. - 16:59, December 22, 2011 (UTC) :But every time you point out that there is no "size requirement/limitation", I point out that there still is a difference between being comprehensive and being so detailed that no one ever will read through the article in one run - or at least it feels as if I'm repeating myself here, too. I have, right now, just read up to the end of section 3 (of 10!) and it already feels as if I read at least two complete articles. -- Cid Highwind 17:34, December 22, 2011 (UTC) :Some more stuff (just sections 1-3): :#This image is misplaced in the article, the text explaining it being at a lower position than the image itself. Perhaps needs a rearrangement of text if the new location clashed with other images. :#According to the text, this image is supposed to show the "real colors" of the model - but there are three images, each one displaying different colors. Something like "(upper left)" (at least I guess that's the correct one) needs to be added. :#In the six-foot model subsection "Use", there's a big block of text formatted as background note. What's the reason for this, and shouldn't the text just be formatted like the rest? It's a real-world article, after all. :#Just preceding that bgnote, there's a quote in which someone states that a ball of tape was "this big", apparently showing something with his hands - there should be a note about the actual size shown. :-- Cid Highwind 17:52, December 22, 2011 (UTC) :Section 4 (Two-foot model): :#This image is described as showing "test-lighting" of the two-foot model - but it seems as if it actually is a comparison between two different models. Needs explanation. :#This image is described as showing just the matte painting of the starbase interior - but it actually is a composite shot with the six-foot model already. Needs either a different image or a rewrite of the description - and in any case, should not be located in a section about the two-foot model if it shows the six-footer. -- Cid Highwind 18:12, December 22, 2011 (UTC) :*In section 5 ("Filming the six and two-foot models", subsection "stock footage"), there's a reference to Robert Legato making Image G "shoot a rock" - out of nowhere and unexplained. Not sure if "the rock" is supposed to be the stellar core fragment that destroyed the Tsiolkovsky or something else - there should either be an explanation, or that bit be trimmed off. Thinking about the whole section, I believe that would be a good candidate for removal from this article (either to the articles of the different effect companies, or to a completely new one like Galaxy class effect shots). I'll stop at that point for the time being, and oppose based on the problems listed so far. More later (or during the holidays :)). -- Cid Highwind 18:42, December 22, 2011 (UTC) ::::Some preliminary comments. First, I don't really like the lead-in to this article. I'd prefer a sentence that gives a better overview of the article as a whole. (More like Constitution class model) ::::Second - I'm a bit confused by the bit about . The text and the quote regarding what the effects people did don't seem to match up. Did they use firecrackers or timed charges to blow up the model? If it was both, this needs to be clarified.–Cleanse ( talk | ) 00:04, December 23, 2011 (UTC) @Cleanse: Preliminary pass at rewording the intro, feel free to make further changes. @Cid: I wouldn't consider this article to be so large as to make it unreadable, as I've read it in one go just a few days ago. As I've said already, I see splitting the article to be a solution that's worse than the "problem" since most of information at the suggested split points overlaps greatly. That said, we should get this up to snuff, I've asked Sennim for help with some of the issues involving info I don't have, and then see if the article needs splitting, with temp pages and all that jazz. Anyway, here's some responses to the section 1-3 stuff: 1) I've moved the image down, but it's placement was correct before I introduced the blockquote format, there may be a few other images that need to simply be moved around the quotes as they are now. 2) You're guess is as good as mine on that, since my screen sucks. I've added the suggested text for now though. 3) As for the use of the bginfo template, I've read that to mean the info inside is a bit of a tangent to the rest of the section, though it could be formatted differently I guess. I'd rather give a change for Sennim to respond to that first though. 4) I'll get to checking the DVD shortly unless someone beats me to it. - 03:21, December 23, 2011 (UTC)